Abstract: Construction field requires new technique in order to enhance the construction procedure. As the traditional method of building construction require huge consumption of materials and the time as well. Thus, it becomes necessary to search new approach in construction. Slab is one of the important elements of the building consuming large amount of concrete. The load transmitted on the slab is more and the clear span between the columns is large which results in usage of massive amount of concrete and steel. Due to this, the dead weight and the cost of construction increases so to minimize the above issues, Bubble deck technology can be used. Bubble deck slab is a biaxial hollow core slab. In this method concrete in the mid span of the slab is replaced by high density polyethylene balls (HDPE). HDPE balls are recycled materials derived from gasoline products under controlled temperature and prove to be eco-friendly. The diameter of the ball depends upon the depth of the slab. The ratio of bubble diameter to the depth of the slab plays a vital role. The concrete placed in the central portion of the slab acts as a filler material and it does not carry structural load. In this thesis the theoretical, analytical and experimental study has been done. Flexural test is carried out on the slab in order to check the strength. 24 specimens of slabs are casted, 12 specimens of conventional slab and 12 specimens of Bubble Deck slab. The grade of concrete used in casting the slab is M25. The approach includes making of moulds, forming the reinforcement mesh, placing the HDPE balls between the mesh, concreting, curing and testing. The test is performed on UTM and the results are analyzed. From the results it is obtained that the volume of concrete is reduced by 28.8% in bubble deck slab as compared to conventional slab and Bubble deck slab is lighter by 25% as compared to conventional slab also. The load bearing capacity of bubble deck slab is also increased by 11.68%.

Keywords: Bubble Deck slab, HDPE, conventional slab, flexure, comparison.

| DOI: 10.17148/IARJSET.2022.9814